Professional Documents
Culture Documents
16 The unregulated use of computers at the courts is identified a root cause, and solution
17 is proposed based on enforcement of state and federal Rule Making Enabling Act, as
23
24 EXHIBITS
25 EXHIBIT 1. STURGEON V LA COUNTY (BC351286) EVIDENCE FOR MISTRIAL -
26 p21
27 Credible evidence demonstrates that the LA Superior Court denied and continues to
28 deny access to the true official litigation records – the Register of Actions in Sustain –
13 Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files hereby his Notice of Motions and Motions: (1)
14 Mistrial; (2) Alternatively To vacate Orders and Judgments pursuant to CCP § 473, (3) For
15 Orders on the Court and the Clerk of the Court to provide reasonable explanations for their
16 conduct in instant litigation, and (4) For Orders Initiating Corrective Actions pursuant to
17 California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3D(1) & (2), and Proposed Orders. Further notice
18 regarding date and time of hearing would be provided pursuant to further directions by the
19 Court.
20 Dr Zernik alleges that litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), and the conduct of
21 the Clerk of the Court in such case - from inception, generated ambiguity in severe violation of
22 fundamental Common Law, First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and compromised
23 litigation to the point of Mistrial. Such abuse of Civil Rights pursuant to the Amendments is
24 best evidenced by Dr Zernik’s requests for access to court records in instant case, and denial of
25 access, through the Counsel for the Court on behalf of the Clerk (Exhibit 1a). Concomitantly,
26 the Court provided access to an online record titled “Case Summary” which is misleading
27 (Exhibit 1b-c), since it fails to list pertinent records, it includes statements that contradict other
28 records, and it comes with a disclaimer that it is NOT an official Court record and should not be
23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
24
25
26
2
27 Pro Se Intrested Party hoped that California law provided same privileges to Pro Se filers as U.S.
law, where Pro Se Filer is forgiven when unable to provide full legal theory to support his claims, as
28 long as the facts and the claims are clearly stated.
4 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
5
6
7
By: _________________________________
8 Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
9
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
10 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
11
VII.
12 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
13 Judicial Notice is requested of the following Court records, only for facts that are
14 universally acknowledged – that such records exist. Pro Se Interested Party Dr Zernik alleges
15 that such records upon review must be deemed false and misleading. Therefore, the Request
16 for Judicial Notice does not include any claim of truthfulness of these record, only their mere
17 existence:
18 1) In re: Fine Habeas Corpus (at Cal Ct App, 2nd) (B214321)
19 a. Docket
20 b. Trial Court
2) Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914)
21 a. June 12, 2009 Judge Woehrle’s Report and Recommendations
22
3) Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737)
23 b. Register of Actions
24 c. Case Summary
25 d. Records by David Pasternak retrieved from Office of Registrar/Recorder
26 4) Marina v LA County (BS109420)
a. Case Summary
27
28
6 All three records are stamped on their faces “FILED” at the LA Superior Court on
7 March 4, 2009. The LA Sup Court copy is signed by Judge Yaffe and dated March
8 4, 2009, the other two copies are dated March 24, 2009. The Att Fine copy was also
19 f. Table summarizing the differences between Minute Orders from paper and
21 g. August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to Cal Code Civ Proc §437c by Judge
22 Jacqueline Connor
h. November 9, 2007 Motion for appointing Pasternak Receiver by Att Mohammad
23
Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin LLP)
24
i. November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver by Judge John Segal.
25
j. November 9, 2007 Transcript of proceeding for appointment of David Pasternak
26
Receiver.
27
28
5 Once Dr Zernik was informed by Clerk Drapac of the Court procedure for filing, he
6 requested to access the essential official court records in purported case captioned Sturgeon v
7 LA County, and designated by number (BC351286) (Exhibit 1a).
8 Mr Drapac refused to respond, instead he referred Dr Zernik’s request to Court Counsel
9 Bennett for response. The responses received from Counsel Bennett included a key statement
10 that should be deemed fraudulent – regarding purported availability of the Register of
11 Actions in lasuperiorcourt.org online (Exhibit 1a). To this date, the LA Superior Court has
12 remained adamant in its insistence on denying access to court records in Instant Case -
13 Sturgeon v LA County.
14 There is simply no plausible explanation why an honest court would deny any person
15 access to litigation records as required by law. However, in LA County, such denial of
16 access to court records goes back some 25 years – resulting in ambiguation of litigation
17 records in the LA County Courts, and directly enabling wrongdoing by Intervenor LA
18 Superior Court in collusion with Defendant LA County.
19
20 5) Denial of access to court records as the defining feature of the justice system in LA
County, California
21
22 Denial of access to court records is alleged as the key feature in conduct of Defendant LA
23 County and Intervenor LA Superior Court that is routine wrongdoing. The reason is that
24 most of the alleged frauds jointly perpetrated by Defendant LA County and Intervenor LA
25 Superior Court can be classified as “Shell Game Frauds” since the victim is denied the right
26 to see the litigation papers concealed by the LA Superior Court, while through wrongful
27 collusion of the judiciary and executive in LA County, they claim to execute alleged
28 fraudulent judgments, as detailed in examples below.
12 various indications that strongly suggest that the affair involved the keeping of contradictory
13 sets of records, as seen in other cases of the Court. Some of the indications found in the
14 available records that suggest that the case is a compromised case of the Court:
13 Justice Richman in the affair, and repeatedly stated regarding his involvement in instant case
- “Not Case Assignment” (see also Table 1, below):
14
15
i) False listing others as presiding in proceedings where Justice Richman presided: For
certain events that are known to have been presided by Justice Richman, pursuant to
16
Minute Orders, are listed in the Case Summary with others as the presiding judge.
17
E.g., (xi) below, 2/7/2007.
18
ii) Listing the proceeding, but omitting Justice Richman’s name: For example – see (xiii)
19
3/16/2009
20
iii) Listing the proceeding, but listing “Reference Judge” as the Presider, and list Justice
21
Richman by name in parenthesis, see (xiv) below.
22
These false data were related here not only because they reflected dishonesty in the
23
online record, but to point out the level of abuse- litigation records were adulterated “as you
24
go” and posted online.
25
Table 1. Presiding Judges and Proceedings in Sturgeon v LA County
26 As represented in Case Summary online.
No. Date Judge Assign? Parenthetical
27 Event DATA FROM OTHER sources
28
25 Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
26 independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
27
28
12 17) Case #1: Wrongdoing was alleged by the Court in collusion with LA County
13 agency – the Sheriff Department in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
14 There is no plausible explanation based on good faith conduct for explaining the records
15 found in re: March 4, 2009 Judgment by Judge David Yaffe for jailing of Attorney Fine.
16 In a recent review of records in Fine v LA County Sheriff Department - the habeas
17 corpus petition of Att Richard Fine (Exhibit 2c), Dr Zernik found out that the purported
18 Judge David P Yaffe March 4,2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, which was
19 stamped FILED by the LA Superior Court on March 4, 2009, and was stamped FILED on
20 March 20, 2009, as one of the exhibits in habeas corpus petition filed on that date at the U.S.
21 District Court , LA, was verified by Judge David Yaffe, with the date of March 24, 2009. on
22 at least 2 of the copies of such purported court record. One might initially consider such
23 false date as a naïve error, but further investigation made it more likely that the case involved
24 false judgment record and alleged alteration/adulteration of court records to affect false
25 imprisonment.
26 Once it was realized that the case of the jailing of Att Richard Fine was yet another
Entry of Judgment case by the LA Superior Court, the history of the litigation in the habeas
27
corpus petition in both the U.S. District Court, LA became clearer:
28
28 Judge David Yaffe or any other Court officer. Instead, the U.S. District Court of Magistrate
7 In the case of Marina v LA County, it was likely that upon gaining access to Public
8 Record which was the Register of Actions in Sustain, additional flaws in the records by the
9 LA Superior Court would be uncovered. Requests filed with the Clerk of the LA Superior
Court to access such records was denied.
10
11
20) Wrongdoing was alleged in collusion by the LA Superior Court and the U.S.
District Court LA in habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff
12 (2:09-Cv-01914)
13 The docket of the U.S. District Court, LA in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914), stated
14 that the petition of Att Fine was filed on March 20, 2009, including the Judge Yaffe March 4,
15 2009 Judgment record. Dr Zernik was reliably informed that Att Fine recently stated that
16 such record that was in his possession and was filed on his behalf with the habeas corpus
17 petition was undated. However, the U.S. docket in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914), further
18 stated that the petition exhibits, filed on March 20, 2009 were modified on March 24, 2009,
19 with no additional details, and with no evidence of consent by Att Fine to such modifications
20 that may have taken place and were noted in the docket.
21 Combined with additional evidence it appeared most plausible that on March 24,
22 2009, the record in the U.S. District Court was disassembled, and that the necessary page
23 was forwarded to Judge Yaffe for signature, which he truthfully then signed March 24, 2009,
24 only to have the record shipped back to the U.S. Court, and reinserted into the Attorney
25 Richard Fine habeas corpus petition, all without Att Richard Fine’s consent.
26 Dr Zernik raised his concerns with the counsel involved, but none of them responded
27 to Dr Zernik (Exhibit 2d). Dr Zernik also raised his concerns with the U.S. District Court
6 21) No record at all existed of entry or service of March 4, 2009 Judgment for the
Jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420)
7
8 Of interest, the March 4, 2009 Minute Order in the case that originated the jailing -
10 Such March 4, 2009 Minute Order was never noticed or served on the parties either. In short
– there is no evidence that any semblance of entry of judgment procedure or any permutation
11
of such procedure ever took place on March 4, 2009. Instead, it appears that Judge Yaffe
12
chose to deliberately rely on a defective, unentered ineffectual judgment for the jailing of Att
13
Fine, and the Sheriff Department went along for the ride.
14
The alleged false March 4, 2009 judgment was of course facilitated by the fact that
15
the LA County did not maintain a Book of Judgments, and therefore did not comply with any
16
legal procedure for entry of judgment. Therefore, there was also no clearly defined way for
17
the public to inspect and to copy records that would definitively ascertain or refute the
18
existence of a March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine.
19
In short – the LA Superior Court created vague and ambiguous conditions relative to
20
judgments that were outside any standards of U.S. Due Process, and also International Law
21
in re: Fair Tribunals.
22
22) Inexplicable dishonest review of the allegedly false David P Yaffe March 4, 2009
23 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420) was
recorded by the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
24
25 The case of Marina v County (BS109420), also demonstrates the conduct of the
26 California Court of Appeals, 2nd District in cases of alleged judgment fraud by the LA
27 Superior Court. Att Richard Fine filed a habeas corpus petition also with the California
28 Court of Appeals, 2nd District, based on the same purported David P Yaffe March 4, 2009
6 Such unusual practice by the California Courts of Appeals in their online “Dockets
7 (Registers of Actions)”, in fact, was no different from the online “Case Summary” falsely
9
Case Number B214321
10 Date Description Notes
11 03/02/2009 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed. Request for Immediate Stay/1 Volume of Exhibits
12
03/03/2009 Order denying petition filed.
13
03/03/2009 Case complete.
14
15
16 23) Dishonest review of the allegedly fraudulent Judge David Yaffe March 4,2009
Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine was recorded by Magistrate Woehrle’s
17 June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations in the matter of Att Richard Fine’s
habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914)
18
19 Once one realized that the jailing of Att Richard Fine was most likely founded on a
20 false judgment at the LA Superior Court, the conduct of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle
21 becomes much easier to understand, albeit – serious concerns were raised regarding her
22 conduct as well.
23 The core standard for review of a habeas corpus petition was spelled out in Fay v
24 Noya (1963), where the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision was written by the late
25 Justice Brennan. In a writ of habeas corpus, a U.S. Judge is petitioned “to inquire into the
26 legality of the prisoner's detention”, and the overriding standard of review in such inquiry
is: “…if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental
27
28
6 and Recommendation could be deemed an oversight or as a naïve error, if only for the fact
7 that she managed in a few short sentences to misrepresent the case of Marina v LA County
8 (BS109420), as if it provided the authentic legal foundation for the jailing, while managing
9 to consistently avoid any valid statement on the matter. Moreover, a year earlier, Dr Zernik
10 was engaged in similar arguments with Magistrate Carla Woehrle relative to yet another
12 (SC087400). Therefore, there was no doubt at all, that by the time she reviewed the Att
13 Richard Fine habeas corpus petition she was readily familiar with all the nuances of the
15 Needless to say, the fact that such cases of alleged false judgments by the LA
16 Superior Court end up in the lap of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle, combined with the
17 multiple recusals typically seen in such cases, are inexplicable in and of themselves.
18 25) Case #2: Criminality in conduct of judges Connor, Segal, and Friedman, among
others, was alleged in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
19
20 Magistrate Carla Woehrle reviewed the LA Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik
22 LA Superior Court were named as Defendants for allegedly perpetrating real estate false
23 conveyance of title. They were sued for violation of civil rights under the color of law 42
24 USC §1983, pertaining to the taking of Dr Zernik’s property for private use with no
25 compensation at all. They were also in the unusual position of having no immunity, since
28 entered. In that case as well, the LA Superior Court attempted to file the online “Case
14 Phillips issued a March 21. 2008 Minute Order, where she stated twice that judgment was
15 “awarded”, but never mentioned the word “entered”. Dr Zernik filed a request for reconsideration,
16 asking for restatement of that ruling with the word “entered”. Dr Zernik asked Judge Phillips as well
17 for a Statement on the Record in re: conflicts. Judge Phillips denied both requests.
18 26) There is no plausible explanation based on honest conduct and effectual August
9, 2009 Judgment by Court in view of the records generated by Judge Jacqueline
19
Connor, Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, Att David Pasternak, Att
20 Mohammad Keshavarzi in Samaan v Zernik.
21 The evidence provided in Exhibit 4 that are Court records from Samaan v Zernik
22 (SC087400) showed that the judges in this case engaged in alleged criminal conduct. None
23 of them held valid Assignment Order, none of them had any authority by law. They engaged
24 in the taking of property for private use with no compensation at all, under the threat of
25 force.
26 27) Case #3: False Entry of Judgment in Galdjie v Darwish () .There is no plausible
27 explanation based on honest conduct and effectual May 20, 2002 Judgment by
Court in view of the records generated by Judge John Segal and Att David
28 Pasternak in Galdjie v Darwish.
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
8
HAROLD STURGEON, ) Case No. BC351286
9 Plaintiff/Petitioner ) The Honorable Justice Richard A Richman,
)
10 ) California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
v
)
11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ) [PROPOSED] ORDERS IN RE:
) MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL,
12 Defendant/Respondent )
) ALTERNATIVELY –VACATING
13 and ) JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, AND FOR
) CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF )
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS )
15 ANGELES, )
Intervenor . )
16 )
_____________________________________ )
17
18
19 INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH ZERNIK’S Motions for Mistrial, alternatively for vacating
20 judgments, and for orders to initiate corrective actions came for hearing before this Court on
21 _______ , 2009.
22 Good cause apparent, the orders were granted as follows:
23 1) Pro Se Interested Party’s request for incorporation by reference is GRANTED.
24 2) Pro Se Interested Party request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED/
25 3) The Clerk of the Court, Mr John A Clarke, shall provide forthwith authentication endorsed
26 by his own hand, that matter under caption of Sturgeon v LA County, designated by number
27
28
26 9) Declaratory Relief: Regarding Dr Joseph Zernik’s property at 320 South Peck Drive,
27 Beverly Hills:
28
6 days from the date of this order, that the false grant deed that was filed at the Office of
7 LA County Registrar/Recorder shall be withdrawn, and all funds remaining as of this date
10 10) Declaratory Relief: Regarding conduct of Att David Pasternak as Receiver for the
LA Superior Court:
11
The Clerk of the Court shall report to the Section on Public Integrity of the U.S. Department
12
of Justice regarding findings related to conduct of Att David Pasternak and the Department
13
of Writs and Receivers under Judge David Yaffe, and request their investigation of the
14
matter.
15
16 11) The LA Superior Court shall implement in Sustain an Index of Judgments, and
shall establish Rules of Court for Entry of Judgment in compliance with the law and
17
California Rule Making Enabling Procedure – Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1.
18
The LA Superior Court shall update its Rules of Court so that they reflect the true practice
19
of the court today in compliance with the law.
20
21 12) Orders for corrective action in re: the Rampart-FIPs:
e. The Clerk of the LA Superior Court shall allow public access to litigation
22
records of the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior Court in a
23
manner similar to that listed above regarding the civil division of the same
24
court.: Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts,
25
Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders in the
26
computerized case management system (name unknown) of the criminal
27
division.
28
15
16
17 Dated:________________________
18
19 _____________________________________
20 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 I am employed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years
8 and not a party to the action; my business address is:________________________
On _____________, 2009 , I served the foregoing document described as:
9 (1) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND (2) UNDER SEPARATE
FACE PAGE: INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF
10
REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTIONS BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND NOTICES
11 OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL, ALTERNATIVELY – VACATING
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, AND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WITH
12 EXHIBITS IN TOTAL OF 3 VOLUMES.
13 The document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a
true copy thereof in the firm’s mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted in
14 the attached mailing list.
15
[x] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
16 practice it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon
fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that
17
on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or
18 postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this
declaration.
19 [ ] VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled document to be sent to
20 the recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsimile number as noted in
the attached mailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile and transmission
21 reported complete without error.
22 [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the
addressees noted in the attached mailing list.
23 [ ] BY EMAIL: Courtesy copy. I sent by email with copy to myself as shown in printouts.
Executed on _______________, 2009, Los Angeles, California.
24
25 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that the declaration was executed on August __, 2009.
26
27
_____________________________
28 Name